ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Contributions of associative and non-associative learning to the dynamics of defensive ethograms.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Defensive behavior changes based on threat intensity, proximity, and context of exposure, and learning about danger-predicting stimuli is critical for survival. However, most Pavlovian fear conditioning paradigms focus only on freezing behavior, obscuring the contributions of associative and non-associative mechanisms to dynamic defensive responses. To thoroughly investigate defensive ethograms, we subjected male and female adult C57BL/6J mice to a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm that paired footshock with a serial compound stimulus (SCS) consisting of distinct tone and white noise (WN) stimulus periods. To investigate how associative and non-associative mechanisms affect defensive responses, we compared this paired SCS-footshock group with four control groups that were conditioned with either pseudorandom unpaired presentations of SCS and footshock, shock only, or reversed SCS presentations with inverted tone--WN order, with paired or unpaired presentations. On day 2 of conditioning, the paired group exhibited robust freezing during the tone period with switching to explosive jumping and darting behaviors during the WN period. Comparatively, the unpaired and both reverse SCS groups expressed less tone-induced freezing and rarely showed jumping or darting during WN. Following the second day of conditioning, we observed how defensive behavior changed over two extinction sessions. During extinction, the tone-induced freezing decreased in the paired group and mice rapidly shifted from escape jumping during WN to a combination of freezing and darting. The unpaired, unpaired reverse, and shock-only groups displayed defensive tail rattling and darting during the SCS, with minimal freezing and jumping. Interestingly, the paired reverse group did not jump to WN, and tone-evoked freezing was resistant to extinction. These findings demonstrate that non-associative factors promote some defensive responsiveness, but associative factors are required for robust cue-induced freezing and high-intensity flight expression.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.